While laboratory monitoring is not required in patients treated with apixaban, a direct factor-Xa inhibitor, assessment of its concentration is useful in some critical situations. However, few data are available on its effect on coagulation tests and on the suitability of anti-Xa assays for its quantification. It was the objective of this study to identify laboratory tests suitable for apixaban concentration assessment. Coagulation tests – PT and aPTT- and anti-Xa assays were performed in apixaban-spiked plasma samples. To evaluate the sensitivity of PT and aPTT to apixaban, we conducted a first monocenter part, with a wide range of concentrations (50–1,000 ng/ml), a large panel of reagents (20 reagents), and two coagulometers (STAR^®, Stago and ACL TOP^®, IL), and a second multicenter part involving 13 laboratories using either a common PT reagent (RecombiPlastin2G^®) or the local PT and aPTT reagents. In the multicentre part, five blinded apixaban-spiked plasma samples (0/100/200/400/800 ng/ml – checked by HPLC-MS/MS) were used; apixaban concentrations were measured with three anti-Xa assays, apixaban calibrators and controls (Stago). PT and aPTT tests using a large panel of reagents displayed a low sensitivity to a wide range of apixaban concentrations. The concentrations to double PT ranged from 400 to >1,000 ng/ml with the 10 reagents. With the three anti-Xa assays, interlaboratory precision and accuracy were below 11% and 12%, respectively. In conclusion, whereas PT and aPTT tests were not sensitive enough to detect apixaban, the three anti-Xa assays tested using lyophilised apixaban calibrators and controls allowed to reliably quantify a wide range of apixaban concentrations.

Summary: The existence of poor biological response to clopidogrel has been shown in some patients. Despite the increasing number of studies, this phenomenon remains difficult to quantify. We performed a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel and investigate the factors known to modulate this. An exhaustive search was performed. Altogether 171 publications were identified, providing data for a total of 45,664 subjects. The estimated prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel ranged from 15.9% to 49.5% according to the platelet function assay employed. The assays most frequently used were light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) assay and the Verify -now® assay. For all these assays, higher cut-off values were associated with a lower prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel. However, when choosing a fixed cut-off point for each assay, the prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel was highly variable suggesting that other factors could modulate poor biological response to clopidogrel. Finally, none of the studied factors could apparently explain the variability of poor biological response to clopidogrel. This meta-analysis shows that the prevalence of poor biological response depends on the assay employed, the cut-off value and on various unidentified additional factors.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) appears to be a promising treatment for COVID-19. However, all ongoing clinical trials with HCQ use different dosing regimens, resulting in various concentrations. Pharmacokinetic studies are therefore needed to define the optimal dosing regimen.